United States Politics and Government

More stories

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Expected to Block U.S. Steel Takeover by Nippon

    by

    The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is expected to raise national security concerns about selling the iconic steel producer to Japan’s Nippon Steel.President Biden is preparing to soon block an attempt by Japan’s Nippon Steel to buy U.S. Steel on national security grounds, according to three people familiar with the matter, likely sinking a merger that became entangled in election-year politics in the United States.A decision to block the takeover would come after months of wrangling among lawmakers, business leaders and labor officials over whether a corporate acquisition by a company based in Japan — a key U.S. ally — could pose a threat to national security. A move by Mr. Biden to block the deal on those grounds could roil relations between the two nations at a moment when the United States has been trying to deepen ties with Japan amid China’s growing influence in East Asia.For months, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, has been scrutinizing the deal over potential risks. There has been mounting speculation that the Biden administration could intervene before the November election.A White House official told The New York Times that CFIUS “hasn’t transmitted a recommendation to the president, and that’s the next step in this process.”CFIUS is made up of members of the State, Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security Departments, and is led by the Treasury secretary, Janet L. Yellen.The committee sent a letter to U.S. Steel in recent weeks saying that it had found national security concerns with the transaction, one of the people familiar with the situation said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Gaza Debate Reopens Divisions Between Left-Wing Workers and Union Leaders

    by

    Last week’s Democratic National Convention surfaced differences over the war in Gaza that could widen fissures between labor activists and union officials.When members of the Chicago Teachers Union showed up to march at the Democratic National Convention last week, many expressed two distinct frustrations.The first was over the war in Gaza, which they blamed for chewing up billions of dollars in aid to Israel that they said could be better spent on students, in addition to a staggering loss of life. The second was disappointment with their parent union, the American Federation of Teachers, which they felt should go further in pressuring the Biden administration to rein in Israel’s military campaign.“I was disappointed in the resolution on Israel and Palestine because it didn’t call for an end to armed shipments,” said Kirstin Roberts, a preschool teacher who attended the protest, alluding to a statement that the parent union endorsed at its convention in July.Since last fall, many rank-and-file union members have been outspoken in their criticism of Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attacks, in which Hamas-led militants killed more than 1,000 people and took about 250 hostages. The leaders of many national unions have appeared more cautious, at times emphasizing the precipitating role of Hamas.“We were very careful about what a moral stance was and also what the implications of every word we wrote was,” the president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, said of the resolution her union recently adopted.In some ways, this divide reflects tensions over Israel and Gaza that exist within many institutions — like academia, the media and government.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Harris and Trump Have Differing Plans to Solve Housing Crisis

    by

    The two presidential nominees are talking about their approaches for solving America’s affordability crisis. But would their plans work?America’s gaping shortage of affordable housing has rocketed to the top of voter worry lists and to the forefront of campaign promises, as both the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, and the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump, promise to fix the problem if they are elected.Their two visions of how to solve America’s affordable housing shortage have little in common, and Ms. Harris’s plan is far more detailed. But they do share one quality: Both have drawn skepticism from outside economists.Ms. Harris is promising a cocktail of tax cuts meant to spur home construction — which several economists said could help create supply. But she is also floating a $25,000 benefit to help first-time buyers break into the market, which many economists worry could boost demand too much, pushing home prices even higher. And both sets of policies would need to pass in Congress, which would influence their design and feasibility.Mr. Trump’s plan is garnering even more doubt. He pledges to deport undocumented immigrants, which could cut back temporarily on housing demand but would also most likely cut into the construction work force and eventually limit new housing supply. His other ideas include lowering interest rates, something that he has no direct control over and that is poised to happen anyway.Economist misgivings about the housing market policy plans underline a somber reality. Few quick fixes are available for an affordable housing shortfall that has been more than 15 years in the making, one that is being worsened by demographic and societal trends. While ambitious promises may sound good in debates and television ads, actual policy attempts to fix the national housing shortfall are likely to prove messy and slow — even if they are sorely needed.Here’s what the candidates are proposing, and what experts say about those plans.Harris: Expand Supply Using Tax Credits.Ms. Harris is promising to increase housing supply by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, providing incentives for state and local investment in housing and creating a $40 billion tax credit to make affordable projects economically feasible for builders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Where Does Biden’s Student Loan Debt Plan Stand? Here’s What to Know.

    by

    The Supreme Court refused to allow a key part of President Biden’s student debt plan to move forward. Here’s what’s left of it, and who could still benefit.President Biden’s latest effort to wipe out student loan debt for millions of Americans is in jeopardy.The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to allow a key component of the policy, known as the SAVE plan, to move forward after an emergency application by the Biden administration.Until Republican-led states sued to block the plan over the summer, SAVE had been the main way for borrowers to apply for loan forgiveness. The program allowed people to make payments based on income and family size; some borrowers ended up having their remaining debt canceled altogether.Other elements of Mr. Biden’s loan forgiveness plan remain in effect for now. And over the course of Mr. Biden’s presidency, his administration has canceled about $167 billion in loans for 4.75 million people, or roughly one in 10 federal loan holders.But Wednesday’s decision leaves millions of Americans in limbo.Here is a look at what the ruling means for borrowers and what happens next:Who was eligible for SAVE?Most people with federal undergraduate or graduate loans could apply for forgiveness under SAVE, which stands for Saving on a Valuable Education.But the amount of relief it provided varied depending on factors such as income and family size. More than eight million people enrolled in the program during the roughly 10 months that it was available, and about 400,000 of them got some amount of debt canceled.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 63 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Harris and Trump Embrace Tariffs

    by

    Both Democrats and Republicans are expressing support for tariffs to protect American industry, reversing decades of trade thinking in Washington.When Donald J. Trump ran for president in 2016, there was not much love for tariffs in Washington. Many Republicans and Democrats believed that putting levies on imports created economic inefficiencies and that freer trade was the best recipe for growth.That view has largely fallen out of fashion in 2024. While Mr. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, differ greatly in their campaign proposals, both of their parties are increasingly embracing tariffs as an essential tool in protecting American manufacturers from Chinese and other global competitors.It has been a sharp reversal from previous decades, when most politicians fought to lower tariffs rather than raise them. But the loss of American manufacturing jobs as a result of globalization and China’s focus on churning out cheap exports have created a bipartisan backlash against more open trade. Given that Mr. Trump’s 2016 win capitalized on such sentiments, Democrats have been striving to avoid losing voters opposed to free trade.“On economic policy and trade issues, you have both major parties moving in the same direction,” said Nick Iacovella, a senior vice president at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, which advocates tariffs and domestic investments in industry.Mr. Iacovella said that Mr. Trump would most likely go further on tariffs than Ms. Harris would, but that no matter who won the election “it’s still going to be a tariffs administration, and an industrial policy one.”Ms. Harris has sought to differentiate herself from Mr. Trump’s trade proposals, which include tariffs of 10 percent to 20 percent on most imports, as well as levies of more than 60 percent on China. Many economists say that level of tariffs would drive up prices for consumers, since companies would be likely to pass on higher import costs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Trump and Harris Embody a Stark Partisan Divide on Fighting Poverty

    by

    The two presidential candidates can both point to records of pushing poverty rates down, but their approaches could hardly be more different.Follow the latest updates on the Harris and Trump campaigns.The presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump presents the sharpest clash in antipoverty policy in at least a generation, and its outcome could shape the economic security of millions of low-income Americans.As the onset of the pandemic in early 2020 threatened to decimate the economy, Mr. Trump signed a large stimulus package that included substantial aid for the poor. When President Biden and Ms. Harris took office in 2021, their administration pushed more big aid expansions through Congress as part of their pandemic-recovery plan, driving the poverty rate still lower.But if the two candidates’ responses to that extraordinary period had elements in common, the lessons they took from it were very different.In the pandemic-era programs, now mostly expired or reduced, Ms. Harris and other Democrats found reinforcement of their faith in the government’s power to ameliorate hardship. If elected, she would seek to sustain or expand many of them, including subsidies for food, health care and housing, and revive a change to the child tax credit that essentially created a guaranteed income for families with children. Those policies helped temporarily cut the poverty rate by more than half from prepandemic levels.She backs a $15 federal minimum wage, which Republicans have fought, and is a vocal supporter of programs like subsidized child care and paid family leave meant to help balance work and family.Mr. Trump says little about his role in pandemic-era poverty programs, which many Republicans view as having been excessive and fraud-ridden. Instead, he touts his 2017 tax cuts, which he credits for boosting the economy and reducing poverty to a prepandemic low, and he has vowed to extend them when they expire next year. Most of the direct benefit from those cuts went to corporations and the wealthy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Can the G.O.P. Really Become the Party of Workers?

    by

    The most surprising moment of this year’s Republican National Convention may have come on its first night, when the president of the Teamsters railed in prime time against corporate elites and denounced a “war against labor” by business groups. The gasps from some in the hall were almost audible on television.But in many ways, it was a little-noted speech the week before, by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, that was more revealing about the party’s evolving relationship with organized labor.If anything, Mr. Hawley, a rising Republican star who is one of the Senate’s most conservative members, seemed to outflank the Teamsters’ leader. His speech, delivered at the National Conservatism Conference, criticized Republicans who “cheerleaded for corporate tax cuts and low barriers for corporate trade, then watched these same corporations ship American jobs overseas.” Mr. Hawley concluded that, “in the choice between labor and capital,” his party must “start prioritizing the workingman.”Since at least the Nixon era, Republicans have nodded rhetorically at the working class, asserting that their party stands for the cultural values these voters hold dear. And for just as long, Democrats have called that pitch hollow, insisting that Republicans have sought to dupe blue-collar voters into supporting policies that benefit the wealthy. Speaker after speaker at the Democratic National Convention this week went on in this vein.Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has become a leading voice among Republicans pushing for a new relationship with labor. Eric Lee/The New York TimesWhat’s far less common is for a Republican to agree with that critique. “The recent Republican Party, the 1990s party, privileged the money crowd in just about every possible way,” Mr. Hawley said in his speech.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Care Policies Take Center Stage in Harris’s Economic Message

    by

    The Democratic nominee says she wants to make raising a family more affordable. But she has provided few details on her proposals.The “care economy” — a broad set of policies aimed at helping parents and other caregivers — was the great unfinished work of President Biden’s domestic agenda. Vice President Kamala Harris has made it a central aspect of her campaign to succeed him.Ms. Harris, the Democratic nominee, has spoken frequently on the campaign trail about making it more affordable to raise children. She chose a running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, whose signature policy accomplishments include the creation of a paid family leave program.In the first major economic speech of her campaign, she proposed restoring an expanded child tax credit and called for a new $6,000 benefit for parents of newborns. She also laid out policies that aim to reduce housing costs, such as providing up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance to first-time home buyers.In her speech accepting the Democratic nomination on Thursday, Ms. Harris said she would not let conservatives end programs like Head Start that “provide preschool and child care for our children.”But Ms. Harris has not yet offered specific proposals on child care, paid family leave or early childhood education. That has surprised some progressive policy experts, and brought flashbacks of the Biden administration’s inability to enact more sweeping policies.Mr. Biden also initially made the care economy a central piece of his domestic policy agenda, putting it alongside proposed investments in roads and bridges, domestic manufacturing and green energy. His aides often argued that care was a form of infrastructure — that affordable child care, like highways, was essential to a well-functioning economy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More